PS: The big flaw in this approach: Those using less bandwidth are not going to pay less.
If this was a fair and unbiased approach, they would charging less to those who use less and more to those who use more. That is not the case at all.

This is all about greed and the fcc caving in to corporate interest. If one looks at the recent profits of most major broadband providers their profits are not suffering.
The end result of this faux 'net neutrality' is, they will be able to charge more and make more for the exact same service we already get.
Instead of a 'one price fits all' approach they wish to start charging more for people using more bandwidth.
In other words, welcome to Metered Internet!
Soon we will see monthly bandwidth caps with additional charges for those who exceed the cap. The 'all you can eat' internet will soon be 'all you can eat on one plate, additional plates available at a additional cost'.

Wish them lots of luck with this.
Internet airplay regulations and rules are crazy and still being argued in the court system. One interesting point of law is the fact that any licensed internet broadcaster my be asked, at any time, to show proof of ownership (of any material aired).
This might, legally (in this case) fall on the uploader as well! ie: uploading content you did not purchase (and cannot prove you legally own) is like crooks making a video of themselves committing a crime.

PS: It's kind of like the phone service these cable companies offer. Since they aren't phone companies they don't have to provide the service 24/7. If you don't have a phone when you go to dial 911 that's to bad (it's in your contract).
I always thought it was odd the phone company can't do that. They are obligated and can be sued if that happens. But not the cable companies!
gesh
Sounds like preferential treatment, which in big business, usually means someone(s) pocket got lined!